Forget that Rocksteady isn't working on it for a minute: That's not my problem. My problem is...well let me just quote an old YouTube comment I made:
"[You] can't keep playing sequels with combat that never evolves, improves, or changes. It makes the series tedious (franchise fatigue) & it means combat wise it's the same game (might as well be an expansion rather than sequel). AC improved Asylum's combat immensely. All this game does is add enemies that can counter your counters & the "remote claw" which is really just a multi bat-claw from Asylum modified for stealth fighting. That's not as big of a leap as was made from Asylum to City, it's disappointing."
It does far more than that wrong though. This has been mentioned and speculated on before but I'll reiterate for the heck of it: How is the Grapnel Boost in Arkham Origins? That was a prototype in Arkham City that hadn't been used outside of testing, yet it works just the same in Arkham Origins, a game FIVE years before Arkham Asylum. There is no defense for that; this is very clearly stated. The new developer isn't caring much about gameplay continuity or ludonarrative dissonance. I do like the bigger emphasis on Batman's detectiveness though.
To be fair, this game was 1) passed from the main developer to WB Games Montreal, 2) they probably couldn't figure out how to make the game fun and still display Batman as less experienced and a worse fighter, and 3) Batman is in his 2nd year of the career so while he should appear not as good or experienced as later games it's not out of the question that he's still very, very good. Still, I'm sure they could have come up with some way to replace the Grapnel Boost and make Batman seem less experienced (how in the world can he fight as well as he did in Arkham City even with all of the 3 points going for him?!?!?!!!) without losing the fun factor and maybe even enhancing the experience if not bringing a new one to the table. Unfortunately, that must have been too hard and required more manpower, experience, etc. than they had.
I also don't particularly like the story. It's silly and cliche in its own right and more so in comparison to all things Batman, previous Arkham games included (Christmas Eve? Really?,) and, at least on the surface, doesn't seem to contribute much to the overall Arkham theme and plotlines established by the last 2 games. All the unanswered questions were hints at a sequel and this game is likely to answer few of them. I do like how it's very clearly a love letter to fans in terms of nods and villains included, which, let's face it, is just another way of saying the game is using gimmicks that we're willing to excuse b/c we're fanboys/girls. Perhaps, they use them in non-gimmicky ways but there's little evidence of that so far. The story does have positives of course and I love all the voice actors and that Copperhead is a woman (it fits the villain more if you ask me, but all I saw of Copperhead was in the animated Justice League and Justice League Unlimited series of the 2000s).
Finally, they tacked on multiplayer. Don't take this the wrong way: I'm not dissing multiplayer and in fact, I don't believe games have to stand on single player alone all the time. However, RockSteady believed by not adding multiplayer they could make the single player that much better during Arkham City development. It makes you worry that WB Games Montreal is mishandling the franchise. Of course, it's possible to do both without succumbing to RockSteady's concerns and frankly back in the day I wished Arkham City had multiplayer. What Arkham Origins is doing is very similar to to other team multiplayer but at least it's got some unique mechanics and a Batman/Arkham twist to the team multiplayer genre. It adds some variety even if it's just copy/pasting the single player experience and tweaking it to be ready for multiplayer. The multiplayer I wanted back when I played City was much simpler; I simply wanted to battle other people who used the same combat system as me. I thought it would make the game so much more interesting. Imagine fighting a human player, not an AI, who was playing as Nightwing while you're Catwoman. The fighting would need tweaks to make it compatible for human gameplay and I thought once it was perfected it would make for something truly unique to oppose the likes of Super Smash Bros, Soul Calibur, FPS/TPS multiplayer, etc.
So, what do all you Arkham fans think of what you've heard and seen of Arkham Origins? Non-fans too, I suppose. For now, I think I'll pass and wait for a future bundle of some sorts or when it's dropped down in price.
"[You] can't keep playing sequels with combat that never evolves, improves, or changes. It makes the series tedious (franchise fatigue) & it means combat wise it's the same game (might as well be an expansion rather than sequel). AC improved Asylum's combat immensely. All this game does is add enemies that can counter your counters & the "remote claw" which is really just a multi bat-claw from Asylum modified for stealth fighting. That's not as big of a leap as was made from Asylum to City, it's disappointing."
It does far more than that wrong though. This has been mentioned and speculated on before but I'll reiterate for the heck of it: How is the Grapnel Boost in Arkham Origins? That was a prototype in Arkham City that hadn't been used outside of testing, yet it works just the same in Arkham Origins, a game FIVE years before Arkham Asylum. There is no defense for that; this is very clearly stated. The new developer isn't caring much about gameplay continuity or ludonarrative dissonance. I do like the bigger emphasis on Batman's detectiveness though.
To be fair, this game was 1) passed from the main developer to WB Games Montreal, 2) they probably couldn't figure out how to make the game fun and still display Batman as less experienced and a worse fighter, and 3) Batman is in his 2nd year of the career so while he should appear not as good or experienced as later games it's not out of the question that he's still very, very good. Still, I'm sure they could have come up with some way to replace the Grapnel Boost and make Batman seem less experienced (how in the world can he fight as well as he did in Arkham City even with all of the 3 points going for him?!?!?!!!) without losing the fun factor and maybe even enhancing the experience if not bringing a new one to the table. Unfortunately, that must have been too hard and required more manpower, experience, etc. than they had.
I also don't particularly like the story. It's silly and cliche in its own right and more so in comparison to all things Batman, previous Arkham games included (Christmas Eve? Really?,) and, at least on the surface, doesn't seem to contribute much to the overall Arkham theme and plotlines established by the last 2 games. All the unanswered questions were hints at a sequel and this game is likely to answer few of them. I do like how it's very clearly a love letter to fans in terms of nods and villains included, which, let's face it, is just another way of saying the game is using gimmicks that we're willing to excuse b/c we're fanboys/girls. Perhaps, they use them in non-gimmicky ways but there's little evidence of that so far. The story does have positives of course and I love all the voice actors and that Copperhead is a woman (it fits the villain more if you ask me, but all I saw of Copperhead was in the animated Justice League and Justice League Unlimited series of the 2000s).
Finally, they tacked on multiplayer. Don't take this the wrong way: I'm not dissing multiplayer and in fact, I don't believe games have to stand on single player alone all the time. However, RockSteady believed by not adding multiplayer they could make the single player that much better during Arkham City development. It makes you worry that WB Games Montreal is mishandling the franchise. Of course, it's possible to do both without succumbing to RockSteady's concerns and frankly back in the day I wished Arkham City had multiplayer. What Arkham Origins is doing is very similar to to other team multiplayer but at least it's got some unique mechanics and a Batman/Arkham twist to the team multiplayer genre. It adds some variety even if it's just copy/pasting the single player experience and tweaking it to be ready for multiplayer. The multiplayer I wanted back when I played City was much simpler; I simply wanted to battle other people who used the same combat system as me. I thought it would make the game so much more interesting. Imagine fighting a human player, not an AI, who was playing as Nightwing while you're Catwoman. The fighting would need tweaks to make it compatible for human gameplay and I thought once it was perfected it would make for something truly unique to oppose the likes of Super Smash Bros, Soul Calibur, FPS/TPS multiplayer, etc.
So, what do all you Arkham fans think of what you've heard and seen of Arkham Origins? Non-fans too, I suppose. For now, I think I'll pass and wait for a future bundle of some sorts or when it's dropped down in price.
